User talk:Snj67

AfC

Hello, I have reviewed your submission at AfC and while the subject might be worthy of an article, there are a couple of problems with it:

It doesn't seem to be written from a neutral point of view;
The sources do not seem reliable enough. Some of them don't even seem to mention the subject.

If you can correct these problems, you are welcome to resubmit. Or as you are a registered user, you could create the article yourself. Regards, MSGJ (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Msgj,

I hope I am using the correct forum for asking this; if not, my sincerest apologies.

My question is re: an article for submission for which you have suggested a rewrite: Citizens United to Protect the Maurice River and Its Tributaries, Inc.

Specifically, my question is in regards to sources. You indicated that you did not feel that the sources were adequate, did not necessarily pertain, etc.

Can you please give me guidance on this? There are 23 sources/footnotes which include the National Park Service, NJN, EPA, the NY Times, etc. I've reviewed each of the footnotes, etc. and what they are referencing and am having difficulty understanding exactly what you are looking for.

As to the other comment, I will rework the article and run it past several other parties for their input.

Thank you for your input,

snj67Snj67 (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of creating this article in your userspace. You can find it at User:Snj67/Citizens United to Protect the Maurice River and Its Tributaries, Inc.. This is a common technique when preparing to create an article. Let me have another look at it and I'll get back to on the above points. MSGJ (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back over it again I can see all your sources. I must admit I missed a lot of the ones which are embedded in the text (there is a better way to do this which I will show you) and was just looking at your "Sources" section. These seemed insufficient for various reasons. Some were your own website, some were general websites which didn't mention this organisation specifically, etc. It would be more appropriate to name this section "External links". Sources should be reliable third-party coverage.

It's a well written article. Can you assure me that it is not copied from anywhere where copyright might apply?

It seems likely to me that you are involved with this organisation. This does not disqualify you from creating the article but you should be aware of the COI policy.

Regarding my comment on maintaining a neutral point of view, some sentences would seem more suited in a brochure or advert about the organisation. However I wouldn't say it was hopelessly biased and perhaps a few parts could be modified.

When you happy with the article, please go ahead and create it yourself. Then you can blank the page in your userspace and it will probably be deleted automatically at some stage. MSGJ (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Snj67. You have new messages at Msgj's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yes, that's moved. You might also want to create some redirects from other likely search terms, e.g. Citizens United, CU, etc. There are a few possible scenarious:

The page doesn't exist: in which case you can create it and redirect to the article.
The page exists as another article, in which case you can consider putting a dablink at the top.
The page is a disambiguation page, in which case you can add an entry to the article you created.

MSGJ (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]